5 ms·

You're not very familiar with science then, what you see on HN is just the tip of the iceberg. What astounds me again and again is the level of cult and blind

You're not very familiar with science then, what you see on HN is just the tip of the iceberg. What astounds me again and again is the level of cult and blind belief in academia we've reached in parts of the world. It's almost like science has taken the role of religious dogma for many self-proclaimed atheists. Including holy (twitter) wars, schisms and the sacrifice of scapegoats.

russdill 4y ago
You had me in the first half, but your conclusion confuses me. This UFC level of response is what happens when other researchers smell blood in the water. It's the exact opposite of blind belief. Similar but less interested to people outside of the field in question quarrels occur when fellow researchers find a crack somewhere in what's been published, or even more excitingly, widely accepted.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  I worded that confusingly, what was meant is the general public's perception of the academic world, not researchers themselves. We're in complete agreement about the reaction and in my opinion it's an appropriate one. If this guy made up the data he needs to go down.
  - russdill 4y ago
    Maybe blind trust in science is the wrong way to phrase it. People tend to blindly believe and click on whatever validates their own beliefs without caring about the reality of scientific consensus. There's always an endless parade of news articles with "study finds" or "scientists say" with zero context.
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      "Blind trust in science" is the wrong way to phrase it, which is exactly the problem, because people do it anyway. The popular meme is to "go with the science", regardless of the fact that that's barely definable. BTW it's really clear in cases where the "science" result is orthogonal to their existing beliefs: did "pro-maskers" have opinions about masks[0] in 2019? Mostly no. Now think about, say, astronomy results. Lots of people will just go with it, whatever it is, if it has a convincing "science" label on it. [0] DON'T PANIC, I think masks are fine.
    - romeros 4y ago
      Science is one step backwards for every two steps forward. Scientific consensus is often overturned once we get more facts and once we get more research done.
ogurechny 4y ago
“I love SCIENCE!” types don't get how important are general and specific fashions. Here we have a superstar topic, an asteroid killing dinosaurs. It would be fine if it was simply famous, but many consider it One True Measure for everything to align with. So when people present some old or some new data, and say that they are sufficiently confident that their methods are precise and well-adjusted enough to show that X happened before the impact, or that Y happened long after the impact, they are simply dismissed, or told to invent a better explanation that respects the impact as a source of creation of everything, or told that something might be wrong with the method (which effectively means their whole field has been producing nonsensical garbage all along). Moreover, after a decade or two there comes a generation that naively believes that it's their duty to defend the holy principles, and shame the heretics. And then there's internet know-it-alls shouting something about Occam's razor. One would think that years-long volcanic winter would be disastrous no matter which season it happened. However, the desire to touch the superstar yourself could lead to risky behavior.

russdill 4y ago

You had me in the first half, but your conclusion confuses me. This UFC level of response is what happens when other researchers smell blood in the water. It's the exact opposite of blind belief. Similar but less interested to people outside of the field in question quarrels occur when fellow researchers find a crack somewhere in what's been published, or even more excitingly, widely accepted.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
I worded that confusingly, what was meant is the general public's perception of the academic world, not researchers themselves. We're in complete agreement about the reaction and in my opinion it's an appropriate one. If this guy made up the data he needs to go down.
- russdill 4y ago
  Maybe blind trust in science is the wrong way to phrase it. People tend to blindly believe and click on whatever validates their own beliefs without caring about the reality of scientific consensus. There's always an endless parade of news articles with "study finds" or "scientists say" with zero context.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    "Blind trust in science" is the wrong way to phrase it, which is exactly the problem, because people do it anyway. The popular meme is to "go with the science", regardless of the fact that that's barely definable. BTW it's really clear in cases where the "science" result is orthogonal to their existing beliefs: did "pro-maskers" have opinions about masks[0] in 2019? Mostly no. Now think about, say, astronomy results. Lots of people will just go with it, whatever it is, if it has a convincing "science" label on it. [0] DON'T PANIC, I think masks are fine.
  - romeros 4y ago
    Science is one step backwards for every two steps forward. Scientific consensus is often overturned once we get more facts and once we get more research done.

ogurechny 4y ago

“I love SCIENCE!” types don't get how important are general and specific fashions. Here we have a superstar topic, an asteroid killing dinosaurs. It would be fine if it was simply famous, but many consider it One True Measure for everything to align with. So when people present some old or some new data, and say that they are sufficiently confident that their methods are precise and well-adjusted enough to show that X happened before the impact, or that Y happened long after the impact, they are simply dismissed, or told to invent a better explanation that respects the impact as a source of creation of everything, or told that something might be wrong with the method (which effectively means their whole field has been producing nonsensical garbage all along). Moreover, after a decade or two there comes a generation that naively believes that it's their duty to defend the holy principles, and shame the heretics. And then there's internet know-it-alls shouting something about Occam's razor. One would think that years-long volcanic winter would be disastrous no matter which season it happened. However, the desire to touch the superstar yourself could lead to risky behavior.